Re: CL/CLE ancestry and stuff

[Tom Hodge <thodge@charweb.org>]

Eric,

I'm, too, unclear why you make reference to a third generation 'Compact 
Leica'....what the CL letters stand for.

I thought there were only two - if you will - the CL and the CLE.

If we separate the Leica CL and the Minolta CL, then throw in the CLE - 
the Minolta-only variant, which must mean 'Compact Leica, Electronic' or 
something, then, yes, I guess there are 3.

I understand ALL of the CL (and, of course, the CLE) bodies were made in
Japan and the only difference is the badging.  Is this incorrect?  Marc
James Small, jump right in here!  They came off the same lines at the 
same time and were split and mutated by separate top plates at the last 
minute before birth and that's it. 

The CLE was the "renegade" electro-mechanical version with some bells and 
whistles Leica never authorized/approved of/sanctioned/dreamed of/ 
whatever and came along after Leitz threw in their half of the towel on 
the CL project.

I was told this was the start of the beautiful (?) "we'll give you optical 
insight; you tell us about electro-mechanical stuff" relationship that 
led to bells-and-whistles" R cameras.  Faster shutters and higher 
flash sync all of that stuff.  

The 'theory' - if you will - behind the use of just 2 CL lenses originally
(a la Leitz) was that the 40mm f/2.0 Summicron/Rokkor-C was a compromise
between the 35mm and 50mm Summicrons and was easily modified down from a
50mm or up from a 35mm, depending on how you view things - and that the
90mm was the most frequently used "long" lens on the M series so it must
be a good idea on the 'kamera fer der masses' and the idea anyway was to
make the entire 'system' compact from the get-go so 2 lenses it was, like
it or lump it.  They (?) decided the average Joe (or Joella) didn't really
want anything wider than a 35/40mm anyway.  A whole bunch of M series
lenses was out there for the using if one wanted to drift away from Leitz'
original intent.  Ok, fine!

And, I was 'told", Leitz didn't want to hurt existing sales of Leica M
stuff - just find a way to get the next lower level of buyers in on the
fun; we weren't imagined to be able (read that "afford") to fall in love
as deeply (read that "extensively") as the richer folks.  The CL was the
Volkswagen Beetle of the Leica family, OK?  It was for working fools like
me who wanted a Leica M but couldn't afford a "real" one!  I fell for it! 

Minolta somehow glommed onto the idea that the 28mm would be neato-keeno
and stole/developed/made/invented/begged for one that was a
'shrunken-head' version of the venerable 28mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M. 
Personally, I'd kill for one.  (Anyone have a "hit" they need done cheap? 
Just kidding!!!!)

The CL - you may know, Japanese badged or der Deutsch model - doesn't have
viewfinder framelines for the 28mm lens; only the 40, the 50 and the 90
perspective.  The tiny CLE does...to fully accept the tiny 28mm f/2.8
Rokkor-C.  Sure, the 28-C fits perfectly on the CL's but you don't know
what you're shooting via the viewfinder.  I guess one of the M finders could
slip into the hot shoe......CL metering with the 28-C works fine, I'm told. 

Blah, blah, blah......this is as I heard it from a 200 year-old blind
shaman in Borneo or something.  Any corrections anyone?  Added lies or
facts? 

My 'bible', Gunter Osterloh's excellent reference on Leica M, pays lip 
service to the poor tiny CL as if it is some sort of embarrassment or 
failure to Leitz.  Whew!  The prices on the things and the lenses - 
badged as Rokkor's or German - sure say otherwise!!!  (Hmmmmmm.....maybe I 
ought to reconsider that 'hit' thing FURTHER!)

Rgds,

Tom Hodge
Davidson, NC




On Fri, 24 May 1996, Eric Welch wrote:

> At 09:22 AM 5/24/96 -0400, you wrote:
> 
> >I would call this a second-generation CL.
> >
> >What did you mean by third generation?
> 
> It might well be. My impression is that a distinction is made between the
> two versions of the CL, because the second was my by Minolta for Minolta's
> purposes, with permission of Leica, of course, and some people have told me
> they're not quite as good. You note implies that's not true. If so, I would
> have to concur the CLE is a second generation and not third. Yet, I find
> nothing interesting about the camera except maybe ttl flash. The manual
> exposure problem is probably as much as anything a lack of insight into the
> way a "Leica clone" should operate as to guarantee the doom of the camera.
> 
> Can you tell I don't think much of them? <g> I know many who love them. I'm
> just not one of them.
> 
> ==========================
> Eric Welch
> Grants Pass Daily Courier
> 
>